13.02.2013 Views

Air Quality Criteria for Lead Volume II of II - (NEPIS)(EPA) - US ...

Air Quality Criteria for Lead Volume II of II - (NEPIS)(EPA) - US ...

Air Quality Criteria for Lead Volume II of II - (NEPIS)(EPA) - US ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Amiard et al. (1994) investigated the impact on s<strong>of</strong>t tissue Pb concentrations <strong>of</strong> various<br />

feeding regimes on oysters (Crassostrea gigas) during their spat rearing. They fed test groups <strong>of</strong><br />

C. gigas different amounts <strong>of</strong> Skeletonema costatum and additional natural phytoplankton grown<br />

in test solutions. Results showed that size and food intake both negatively correlated with metal<br />

concentrations in s<strong>of</strong>t tissue. The authors hypothesized that this relationship was due in part to a<br />

diluting effect <strong>of</strong> the food.<br />

In summary, nutrients affect Pb toxicity in those aquatic organisms that have been studied.<br />

Some nutrients seem to be capable <strong>of</strong> reducing toxicity, though the mechanisms have not been<br />

well established. Exposure to Pb has not been shown to reduce nutrient uptake ability, though it<br />

has been demonstrated that Pb exposure may lead to increased production and loss <strong>of</strong> organic<br />

material (e.g., mucus and other complex organic ligands) (Capelo et al., 1993).<br />

Interactions with Other Pollutants<br />

Most <strong>of</strong> the scientific literature reviewed in this section considered how Pb and other<br />

elements combine to affect uptake and exert toxicity. Research on the interactions <strong>of</strong> Pb with<br />

complexing ligands and other physical and biological factors was more thoroughly discussed in<br />

Section AX7.2.3.4. Predicting the response <strong>of</strong> organisms to mixtures <strong>of</strong> chemicals is difficult<br />

(Norwood et al., 2003). There are two schools <strong>of</strong> thought on addressing chemical mixtures in<br />

toxicology. The first focuses on the combined mode <strong>of</strong> action <strong>of</strong> the individual mixture<br />

substances while the other focuses on the organism response to the mixture as being additive, or<br />

some deviation from additive (synergistic or antagonistic). The mode <strong>of</strong> action model assumes<br />

that each <strong>of</strong> the individual substances has similar pharmacokinetics as well as mode <strong>of</strong> action.<br />

Approaches to modeling combined mode <strong>of</strong> action include: 1) joint independent action <strong>for</strong><br />

toxicants with different modes <strong>of</strong> action; and 2) joint similar mode <strong>of</strong> action. Within the<br />

scientific literature the deviations from additivity approach can be confusing as some authors<br />

report concentration additivity, while others report effect additivity. The concentration additivity<br />

model assumes that the sum <strong>of</strong> the concentrations will result in a level <strong>of</strong> effect similar to the<br />

simple sum <strong>of</strong> the effects observed if each chemical were applied separately (e.g., Herkovits and<br />

Perez-Coll, 1991). Toxic units (TU) may be used to describe the concentration additivity results<br />

<strong>for</strong> mixtures (e.g., Hagopian-Schlekat et al., 2001). Effects additivity suggests that the level <strong>of</strong><br />

effect <strong>of</strong> a mixture will be the sum <strong>of</strong> the effects <strong>of</strong> each chemical used separately. Thus, the<br />

AX7-171

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!